Ludeon Forums

This is a "Epicness" chart I made to help me decide what weapons to give to my pawns. I wanted to post it for two reason. First is so other people could use it if they wanted to. And second so that I could get some tips on how to make it better and maybe take a look at other charts people may have made.

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

EDIT

I owe you a small apology.

For whatever reason (or user error), my software was not opening the file, now it does.

Weird

I use Softmaker  Office for android+Window

(http://intmstat.com/vectors/235-3D-vector.png)

Improved Epicness If we have just one variable then it makes a single axis of one dimension like a thermometer, and epicness can be read as the length of that thermometer. But what if we have two dimensions, such as DPS and weight? Then we have a two-dimensional quantity. Same with more dimensions. So how do we read/measure a multi-dimensional thing? We make a line from the starting point out to the value in each of the dimensions and measure the length of that line.

The length of that line is the square root of ( x² + y² + z² ... + n² )

Quote from: realdead_man on July 26, 2017, 05:43:45 PM
no one can open the file cause it is a pain to install the reader.

"A" for effort though.

I simply dragged it into Excel.. shame it's for a modded game tho :(

Quote from: realdead_man on July 26, 2017, 05:43:45 PM
no one can open the file cause it is a pain to install the reader.

"A" for effort though.

Sorry. I thought it was just a regular spreadsheet file.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 26, 2017, 06:22:01 PM

(http://intmstat.com/vectors/235-3D-vector.png)

Improved Epicness If we have just one variable then it makes a single axis of one dimension like a thermometer, and epicness can be read as the length of that thermometer. But what if we have two dimensions, such as DPS and weight? Then we have a two-dimensional quantity. Same with more dimensions. So how do we read/measure a multi-dimensional thing? We make a line from the starting point out to the value in each of the dimensions and measure the length of that line.

The length of that line is the square root of ( x² + y² + z² ... + n² )

You are speaking a language I can not even begin to understand.

Quote from: Snafu_RW on July 26, 2017, 08:16:55 PM

Quote from: realdead_man on July 26, 2017, 05:43:45 PM
no one can open the file cause it is a pain to install the reader.

"A" for effort though.

I simply dragged it into Excel.. shame it's for a modded game tho :(

It is for a modded game but quite a few of the regular weapons are on there. Plus the formulas are in the file. Simply fill in rows B-F and then copy and paste rows G-I and it should auto-fill.

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
You are speaking a language I can not even begin to understand.

Column 'I' (Epicness) "=B2 + F2 + G2 - H2"
Column 'I' proposal "=Sqrt( B2^2 + F2^2 + G2^2 - H2^2 )

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 27, 2017, 01:12:02 AM

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
You are speaking a language I can not even begin to understand.

Column 'I' (Epicness) "=B2 + F2 + G2 - H2"
Column 'I' proposal "=Sqrt( B2^2 + F2^2 + G2^2 - H2^2 )

I see. And you think this will give a more accurate "epicness"? I'll try it.

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 09:44:14 AMI see. And you think this will give a more accurate "epicness"? I'll try it.

Essentially, what AngleWyrm's method does is allow a bit more weight to be given to stats that are more divergent than others between two items.

For example, say you have two weapons, one with stats 3,4,5,2 and the other with stats 2,3,7,2.  (Two of the stats differ by 1, but one stat differs by 2.) Your method simply adds the stat values together, giving each an "epicness" value of 14.  If you instead sum the squares, you get a value of 54 for the first weapon (9+16+25+4), and a value of 66 for the second (4+9+49+4).  And that makes an intuitive sort of sense, since a weapon that is a little bit weaker in some areas but significantly stronger in another probably "should" be considered more epic.

Note #1: For your purposes, the final square root calculation is optional, and probably not even desirable. In the example above, for example, final "epicness" values of 54 and 66 are probably simpler to work with than values of 7.348 and 8.124.  :D

Note #2: Expanding on AngleWyrm's suggestion, you could get creative and give different weights to various stats by assigning different exponents.  Say the first stat in the example above is significantly more important than the others. So you cube it instead of squaring it. So now, the weapon with stats 3,4,5,2 ends up with an epicness value of 72 (27+16+25+4), and the one with stats 2,3,7,2 has an epicness value of 70 (8+9+49+4). So in this case, the first weapon comes out on top, since even though the second weapon has a much better value for stat #3, the first weapon has a better value for stat #1, which is more important.

Hopefully, this all makes a bit of sense. ;)

Quote from: dburgdorf on July 27, 2017, 10:13:43 AM

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 09:44:14 AMI see. And you think this will give a more accurate "epicness"? I'll try it.

Essentially, what AngleWyrm's method does is allow a bit more weight to be given to stats that are more divergent than others between two items.

For example, say you have two weapons, one with stats 3,4,5,2 and the other with stats 2,3,7,2.  (Two of the stats differ by 1, but one stat differs by 2.) Your method simply adds the stat values together, giving each an "epicness" value of 14.  If you instead sum the squares, you get a value of 54 for the first weapon (9+16+25+4), and a value of 66 for the second (4+9+49+4).  And that makes an intuitive sort of sense, since a weapon that is a little bit weaker in some areas but significantly stronger in another probably "should" be considered more epic.

Note #1: For your purposes, the final square root calculation is optional, and probably not even desirable. In the example above, for example, final "epicness" values of 54 and 66 are probably simpler to work with than values of 7.348 and 8.124.  :D

Note #2: Expanding on AngleWyrm's suggestion, you could get creative and give different weights to various stats by assigning different exponents.  Say the first stat in the example above is significantly more important than the others. So you cube it instead of squaring it. So now, the weapon with stats 3,4,5,2 ends up with an epicness value of 72 (27+16+25+4), and the one with stats 2,3,7,2 has an epicness value of 70 (8+9+49+4). So in this case, the first weapon comes out on top, since even though the second weapon has a much better value for stat #3, the first weapon has a better value for stat #1, which is more important.

Hopefully, this all makes a bit of sense. ;)

I get it. Thanks for the explanation.

No matter how you measure it .. shotguns win :)

Quote from: SpaceDorf on July 27, 2017, 01:38:06 PM
No matter how you measure it .. shotguns win :)

Dat range tho. I like to try to get my enemies more dead before they are right on top of me.

Quote from: dburgdorf on July 27, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
Note #1: For your purposes, the final square root calculation is optional, and probably not even desirable. In the example above, for example, final "epicness" values of 54 and 66 are probably simpler to work with than values of 7.348 and 8.124.  :D

Note #2: Expanding on AngleWyrm's suggestion, you could get creative and give different weights to various stats by assigning different exponents.  Say the first stat in the example above is significantly more important than the others. So you cube it instead of squaring it. So now, the weapon with stats 3,4,5,2 ends up with an epicness value of 72 (27+16+25+4), and the one with stats 2,3,7,2 has an epicness value of 70 (8+9+49+4). So in this case, the first weapon comes out on top, since even though the second weapon has a much better value for stat #3, the first weapon has a better value for stat #1, which is more important.

• Agreed, there isn't anything to be gained by taking the square root. That's done when all the items have the same unit of measure, to convert it back to that unit, which isn't the case for this spreadsheet.
• A minor improvement to the suggestion for giving more or less weight of consideration to the various items: Multiply them by a scaling factor. So for example if we want range to be twice as important as the other items then multiply range by two before squaring: (importance * item)^2

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 27, 2017, 04:23:29 PM

Quote from: dburgdorf on July 27, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
Note #1: For your purposes, the final square root calculation is optional, and probably not even desirable. In the example above, for example, final "epicness" values of 54 and 66 are probably simpler to work with than values of 7.348 and 8.124.  :D

Note #2: Expanding on AngleWyrm's suggestion, you could get creative and give different weights to various stats by assigning different exponents.  Say the first stat in the example above is significantly more important than the others. So you cube it instead of squaring it. So now, the weapon with stats 3,4,5,2 ends up with an epicness value of 72 (27+16+25+4), and the one with stats 2,3,7,2 has an epicness value of 70 (8+9+49+4). So in this case, the first weapon comes out on top, since even though the second weapon has a much better value for stat #3, the first weapon has a better value for stat #1, which is more important.

• Agreed, there isn't anything to be gained by taking the square root. That's done when all the items have the same unit of measure, to convert it back to that unit, which isn't the case for this spreadsheet.
• A minor improvement to the suggestion for giving more or less weight of consideration to the various items: Multiply them by a scaling factor. So for example if we want range to be twice as important as the other items then multiply range by two before squaring: (importance * item)^2

Hmmm... Well... How would you do it? If it were your chart?

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 07:06:24 PM
Hmmm... Well... How would you do it? If it were your chart?

Implementing the suggestions for a revised and expanded version

---

Already present in the column 'H' for Warmup time is one of the scaling weights for importance we were looking into, incorporated as (Warmup * 10). A further gain in usability can be had by separating out that 'x 10' importance multiplier into another table, and then referring to it as a sort of look-up reference; it makes a definition for that warmup scaling factor and any changes to it will get reflected into the main table. The second sheet would look something like

Accuracy Damage TBS Burst Range Dmg*Burst Warmup
1 1 1 10

If we name the cells in the second sheet, then then the main sheet's column 'H' can read something like "=WarmupImportance * D2" and the importance weights can be tweaked separately without re-writing the main table. Those scaling values can be seen as 1 is it's normal size, 2 is making it twice as important, 1/2 is making it half as important, and so on.

And the Epicness column could be "=(AccuracyImportance * B2)^2 + (RangeImportance * F2)^2 + (DmgBurstImportance * G2)^2 - (WarmupImportance*H2)^2"

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 28, 2017, 01:07:26 PM

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 27, 2017, 07:06:24 PM
Hmmm... Well... How would you do it? If it were your chart?

Implementing the suggestions for a revised and expanded version

---

Already present in the column 'H' for Warmup time is one of the scaling weights for importance we were looking into, incorporated as (Warmup * 10). A further gain in usability can be had by separating out that 'x 10' importance multiplier into another table, and then referring to it as a sort of look-up reference; it makes a definition for that warmup scaling factor and any changes to it will get reflected into the main table. The second sheet would look something like

Code Select Expand

Accuracy Damage TBS Burst Range Dmg*Burst Warmup
1 1 1 10

If we name the cells in the second sheet, then then the main sheet's column 'H' can read something like "=WarmupImportance * D2" and the importance weights can be tweaked separately without re-writing the main table. Those scaling values can be seen as 1 is it's normal size, 2 is making it twice as important, 1/2 is making it half as important, and so on.

And the Epicness column could be "=(AccuracyImportance * B2)^2 + (RangeImportance * F2)^2 + (DmgBurstImportance * G2)^2 - (WarmupImportance*H2)^2"

I think i'm starting to feel you here. Let's say we wanted to do this all on one sheet. We could leave rows B-G as is. Row H or Warmup*10 is simply row D times 10 in order to give it some weight. TBS=Time between shots. It does not have to be times 10. It can be times whatever we think fits in the equation best. We can then turn rows I-K into Accuracy*AccuracyImportance, Range*RangeImportance and DmgBurst*DmgBurstImportance. Of course row H will already be Warmup*WarmupImportance(TBS*TBSImportance). We can then make row L the Epicness which would I+J+K-L. Is that right?

yes, that works.

If column 'M' is Epicness that looks like "=I + J + K - L"
Then I'd like to recommend a column 'N' right next door to it that looks like "=I^2 + J^2 + K^2 - L^2"

Then you can sort the sheet on the two different scores, and judge for yourself which ranking of the weapons most closely resembles what feels right to you.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 28, 2017, 04:11:34 PM
yes, that works.

If column 'M' is Epicness that looks like "=I + J + K - L"
Then I'd like to recommend a column 'N' right next door to it that looks like "=I^2 + J^2 + K^2 - L^2"

Then you can sort the sheet on the two different scores, and judge for yourself which ranking of the weapons most closely resembles what feels right to you.

Sounds good. I'll do it. Now here is the big question. What should AccuracyImportance, RangeImportance, DmgBurstImportance, and WarmupImportance actully be? Like what do you think would be good values?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a2/81/ec/a281ec916c9b5b37d3afc99e6a5aa522--candy-art-eye-candy.jpg)

Is version 2 out yet?

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 28, 2017, 09:58:17 PM

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a2/81/ec/a281ec916c9b5b37d3afc99e6a5aa522--candy-art-eye-candy.jpg)

Is version 2 out yet?

First off. That's a dope picture.

And no. Not yet. I can't decide what to set the values as for AccuracyImportance, RangeImportance, DmgBurstImportance, and WarmupImportance. I'm thinking accuracy should be the most important thing so put that at a times 1. And you have to put TBS at a times 10 for it to even factor since it's such a small number it won't make an impact otherwise. Maybe put range and DmgBurst at a times 0.8? I'm not sure.

(https://s6.postimg.org/r9r5inoi9/forestfairy.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 28, 2017, 10:28:46 PM I can't decide what to set the values as for AccuracyImportance, RangeImportance, DmgBurstImportance, and WarmupImportance. It took the work of many interested lives to find ways to answer the kind of question you've asked, and for all their toil, blood, sweat and tears, they've hidden the answers away in magical tombs of an uncommon tongue, gathering dust in the archives. And so we present magicians break those seals and take the knowledge by force.

QuoteYou have to put TBS at a times 10 for it to even factor since it's such a small number it won't make an impact otherwise.

Looks like a problem with different units of measure: The range of values for one item doesn't have anything to do with the range of another item. And so the purpose of the scaling multiplier shows itself as tool to bring about equal footing for each of the things on the list. So how about starting with giving them exactly equal footing, and then work from there?

There is a set of weapons, and within that set of weapons are the only values we are interested in. Not the theoretical set from which they are drawn, but the ones we actually have. And for each measurement such as accuracy or range, there is a minimum and a maximum value represented in our collection. Normalization is to stretch/squeeze each of those ranges to fit on a new scale of 0..1, and in this way they will have the equal footing that can at least serve as a desirable starting place.

Let's say I have some variable x that goes from 55..180, and I want to fit it into the range 0..1.
First subtract the minimum 55, so the range is 0..125.
Then divide by the maximum 125, so the range is 0..1.

So for every value in my column of x's, I subtract 55 and then divide by 125. They still bear the same relative relationships to each other; we have merely changed our perspective by zooming out and shifting over a bit.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 29, 2017, 01:43:18 AM

(https://s6.postimg.org/r9r5inoi9/forestfairy.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 28, 2017, 10:28:46 PM I can't decide what to set the values as for AccuracyImportance, RangeImportance, DmgBurstImportance, and WarmupImportance. It took the work of many interested lives to find ways to answer the kind of question you've asked, and for all their toil, blood, sweat and tears, they've hidden the answers away in magical tombs of an uncommon tongue, gathering dust in the archives. And so we present magicians break those seals and take the knowledge by force.

QuoteYou have to put TBS at a times 10 for it to even factor since it's such a small number it won't make an impact otherwise.

Looks like a problem with different units of measure: The range of values for one item doesn't have anything to do with the range of another item. And so the purpose of the scaling multiplier shows itself as tool to bring about equal footing for each of the things on the list. So how about starting with giving them exactly equal footing, and then work from there?

There is a set of weapons, and within that set of weapons are the only values we are interested in. Not the theoretical set from which they are drawn, but the ones we actually have. And for each measurement such as accuracy or range, there is a minimum and a maximum value represented in our collection. Normalization is to stretch/squeeze each of those ranges to fit on a new scale of 0..1, and in this way they will have the equal footing that can at least serve as a desirable starting place.

Let's say I have some variable x that goes from 55..180, and I want to fit it into the range 0..1.
First subtract the minimum 55, so the range is 0..125.
Then divide by the maximum 125, so the range is 0..1.

So for every value in my column of x's, I subtract 55 and then divide by 125. They still bear the same relative relationships to each other; we have merely changed our perspective by zooming out and shifting over a bit.

I don't want to sound insulting. You've had a lot of great ideas. But this latest one seems... needlessly complicated. Wouldn't just choosing a good multiplier be faster and easier?

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/072/685/b50.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 29, 2017, 11:31:52 AM Wouldn't just choosing a good multiplier be faster and easier? Multiplication alone will not resolve the difference between two ranges. Each range has to start at a minimum value of 0 in order for scaling to work. Gonna have to break out a double-barrel answer to your query: Addition as well as multiplication. I know it's a toughie, but I feel you're up to the challenge.

Addition, shifting the range to start at zero
Multiplication, the scaling factor

Also, aren't there several range accuracy bands?

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 29, 2017, 01:20:54 PM

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/072/685/b50.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 29, 2017, 11:31:52 AM Wouldn't just choosing a good multiplier be faster and easier? Multiplication alone will not resolve the difference between two ranges. Each range has to start at a minimum value of 0 in order for scaling to work. Gonna have to break out a double-barrel answer to your query: Addition as well as multiplication. I know it's a toughie, but I feel you're up to the challenge.

Addition, shifting the range to start at zero
Multiplication, the scaling factor

Ok. I'm starting to see what you are talking about. The problem is how do I know what the maximum is? For accuracy it's easy 1-100. But for Damage, Range, and TBS I don't know what the maximum is. The maximum is infinite. I mean I could go with the highest I've ever seen but that's still not really the max. It could change if I find a weapon better. Or do you think the highest I've seen will be good enough?

(http://conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Joon_Ahn-_Concept_Art_Illustration_08.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 29, 2017, 06:32:12 PM how do I know what the maximum is? ... do you think the highest I've seen will be good enough? What you've seen thus far is a collection of observations; this is field research data. As your encyclopedia grows the ranges will fill out, approaching theoretical limits. And as new mods come and old ones go, the ranges may change as well. The highest/lowest in the set remains true to the set even as things change over time.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 29, 2017, 07:01:59 PM

(http://conceptartworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Joon_Ahn-_Concept_Art_Illustration_08.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 29, 2017, 06:32:12 PM how do I know what the maximum is? ... do you think the highest I've seen will be good enough? What you've seen thus far is a collection of observations; this is field research data. As your encyclopedia grows the ranges will fill out, approaching theoretical limits. And as new mods come and old ones go, the ranges may change as well. The highest/lowest in the set remains true to the set even as things change over time.

Ok. I feel you. New chart created. Check it out and see if I'm on the right track. I still need to add in the multiplication to decide importance of each stat. I just have not decided yet what the importance levels will be.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/65/dd/7c/65dd7c6b8b960d523b1576ed4553e41c.jpg)

Oh yeah, that train is definitely on track! Two things to help: 1). minor bug fix: min gets shifted to zero to set up for multiplying, but max isn't yet scooting over an equal amount before the multiplier kicks in. It's getting pre-stretched before the multiplier gets to do the stretching. 2). The spreadsheet functions MIN and MAX can prevent re-writes if a weapon with new largest/smallest value is added to the table. MIN(F:F) is minimum of column 'F' and can be put into a formula just like any other value. For example "= D2 - MIN(F:F)"

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 29, 2017, 11:56:11 PM

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/65/dd/7c/65dd7c6b8b960d523b1576ed4553e41c.jpg)

Oh yeah, that train is definitely on track! Two things to help: 1). minor bug fix: min gets shifted to zero to set up for multiplying, but max isn't yet scooting over an equal amount before the multiplier kicks in. It's getting pre-stretched before the multiplier gets to do the stretching. 2). The spreadsheet functions MIN and MAX can prevent re-writes if a weapon with new largest/smallest value is added to the table. MIN(F:F) is minimum of column 'F' and can be put into a formula just like any other value. For example "= D2 - MIN(F:F)"

1. I'm not entirely sure if I follow. Are you saying that amounts are being rounded? I think I might see that. How would I fix this? I could have all amount rounded to the nearest but that would make the sheet less accurate. Any ideas?

2. Thanks for the info. Added to the sheet. Check out the new file and see if it's looking right.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b9/34/93/b93493c2e5767ae6a836654fc8d99b74.jpg)

It turned out to be some in-betweeny convenience feature stuff; the multipliers are fine.

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 30, 2017, 04:31:26 PM

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/b9/34/93/b93493c2e5767ae6a836654fc8d99b74.jpg)

It turned out to be some in-betweeny convenience feature stuff; the multipliers are fine.

Well. I guess for now I'll leave it as is. It should be pretty accurate now that all the stats are on the same scale. I can always add the multiplications later if I decide it needs more weight. But I kinda like how it currently sits.

(https://s6.postimg.org/ww63ng7v5/Untitled.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 31, 2017, 03:40:55 PM It should be pretty accurate now that all the stats are on the same scale. The column marked 'Epicness' can sort the table Would you take the weapon at the top of that sort as your best choice?

So does the original link lead to the updated sheet, or is a new link required?

The original link in the first post is updated.
Sorting on Epicness column for the items currently in the table:

Gun	Epicness
Battle Rifle (Normal)	1.74
Steyr Stg 77 (Good)	1.58
AWP (Normal)	1.48
AAC Honey Badger (Normal)	1.44
Spike Sniper Rifle (Awful)	1.42
DP-12 (Super)	1.40
FN F2000 (Good)	1.36
Laser Rifle	1.23
Colt (Normal)	1.21
3 Line Rifle (Normal)	1.15
Brush Gun (Normal)	1.11
Brownie (Normal)	1.09
BB Gun (Super)	1.09
Police AMR (Normal)	1.08
SPAS-12 Shotgun (Superior)	1.07
Survival Rifle (Normal)	1.06
Nano Scatter Shot	1.06
Inferno Cannon (Normal)	1.03
GD Modular DMR	1.03
Hunting Revolver (Normal)	1.03
CAW Shotgun (Normal)	1.02
SPAS-12	1.01
Crucible Carbine (Poor)	0.95
Dual Berattas (Normal)	0.88
Junkjet (Normal)	0.85
Arbalest (Normal)	0.83
Nano Crossbow	0.83
Combat Shotgun (Normal)	0.82
MP5SD with M203 (Superior)	0.80
G-17 (Normal)	0.80
Short Crossbow (Good)	0.77
Urban Combat Shotgun	0.76
Norbal Scorpion (Normal)	0.74
Charge Shotgun (Poor)	0.73
Black-Mesa Crossbow (Normal)	0.72
Recurve Bow (Shoddy)	0.72
Burstfire Machine Pistol (Normal)	0.71
MP5SD	0.67
Boom Tube (Normal)	0.66
Nano Pistol	0.66
10MM Pistol (Good)	0.62
Heat Cannon (Normal)	0.60
Glock 17C (Shoddy)	0.60
SleepyTyme (Normal)	0.59
Pistol (Normal)	0.57
Tomahawk	0.55
Claymore Shotgun (Normal)	0.54
Great Bow (Normal)	0.51
Stun Grenade	0.47
Silenced PDW (Normal)	0.44
Decrative Pistol Revolver	0.44
Helsing Speargun (Poor)	0.43
Boom Stick (Normal)	0.37
Throwing Knives (Poor)	0.28
Cloth Bag of Boomrats (Normal)	0.27
Auxiliary Pistol (Poor)	0.26
Short Bow (Normal)	0.20
Improvised Pistol (Shoddy)	0.14
Javelin (Normal)	-0.20

Would you mind posting the mods included in the list ?

Quote from: AngleWyrm on July 31, 2017, 05:21:51 PM

(https://s6.postimg.org/ww63ng7v5/Untitled.jpg)

Quote from: InfinityKage on July 31, 2017, 03:40:55 PM It should be pretty accurate now that all the stats are on the same scale. The column marked 'Epicness' can sort the table Would you take the weapon at the top of that sort as your best choice?

I think so. The battle rifle is a good all around weapon. Pretty good stats in all categories with no glaring weaknesses.

Quote from: SpaceDorf on August 01, 2017, 06:39:10 AM
Would you mind posting the mods included in the list ?

Maybe eventually. I've been making this chart for years so some of the weapons are not even in my game anymore.

(https://s6.postimg.org/z6oofik7l/chart.png)

This is the composition and weighting in use by the Epicness stat.

[attachment deleted by admin: too old]

Quote from: AngleWyrm on August 05, 2017, 07:46:30 PM

(https://s6.postimg.org/z6oofik7l/chart.png)

This is the composition and weighting in use by the Epicness stat.

Hmmm... not sure what to do with it. Maybe make accuracy matter a little more. Range a little less. The problem is it could change depending on the person. I personally believe it does not matter how much damage you do if you can't hit shit. But that's just me. Others may disagree.

Quote from: InfinityKage on August 06, 2017, 03:09:11 PM

Hmmm... not sure what to do with it. Maybe make accuracy matter a little more. Range a little less. The problem is it could change depending on the person. I personally believe it does not matter how much damage you do if you can't hit shit. But that's just me. Others may disagree.

I agree absolutely on that .. not hitting equals zero damage .. no matter if it's absolute or dps .. and no amount of discussion  will change that.

Range is important, when it is the only possible way to hit the enemy savely.
I rather miss a scyther 5 times with a sniper rifle than get in range of a 100% shotgun hit without cover.

Quote from: InfinityKage on August 06, 2017, 03:09:11 PM
I personally believe it does not matter how much damage you do if you can't hit shit.

That can be measured as expected damage in units of damage/try. Two scenarios:

• Thumper: hits for 10 damage, but only hits ten times out of every hundred tries
• Pea shooter: hits for 2 damage, but hits fifty times out of every hundred tries

So in the span of a hundred tries both of these weapons have delivered 100 damage.

Accuracy is usually measured in hits per tries, listed as a percentage.
Accuracy =  hitsPerTry = hits/try
Damage  = damagePerHit = damage/hit

The unit of measure for Expected Damage:
hits/try x damage/hit  = damage/try

Expected Damage is damagePerTry.

That equally explains how range fits into the equation .. expected damage over distance ..

Could you please explain burst damage to my tired brain ?

(https://s6.postimg.org/igr2vepxt/imeanttodothat.jpg)

Burst size is a count of tries to hit, and damage ratings are in hp of damage delivered per hit, so Burst x Damage is:  tries x damage/hit It doesn't appear to be designed as a conceptually consumable molecule, but rather a component part of a further combination. Hidden within the expression is a tries on top and a hits on bottom, the flip-side of accuracy which is hits/try. So the outcome of combining burst damage with accuracy simplifies to: ( tries x damage/hit ) x hits/try = damage

Quote from: AngleWyrm on August 06, 2017, 05:08:31 PM

(https://s6.postimg.org/igr2vepxt/imeanttodothat.jpg)

Burst size is a count of tries to hit, and damage ratings are in hp of damage delivered per hit, so Burst x Damage is:  tries x damage/hit It doesn't appear to be designed as a conceptually consumable molecule, but rather a component part of a further combination. Hidden within the expression is a tries on top and a hits on bottom, the flip-side of accuracy which is hits/try. So the outcome of combining burst damage with accuracy simplifies to: ( tries x damage/hit ) x hits/try = damage

I'm not sure what to do with all this information. It's a bit confusing to me. Do I plug it into the chart somehow?

It's already in there, I'm just looking at it from different angles because it's fun to spin the models around and see the facets of the gem.